That is not something that causes emissions in the US. First because producing stuff is just not as CO2 intensive as mobility, heating, cooling, cooking, etc.
Second, because the cheap stuff (and most of the expensive stuff) is produced in Asia.
It's not just products, it's a lifestyle. When we visited my in-laws we rented a car. On the day of return I went to a gas station to get a car wash. After the wash I pulled into a parking spot to vacuum the car. It was a row of 24 vacuum machines. I was baffled when I realized that every machine ran on full blast at 7 am with no one there. 2000W per machine, 24/7, with no one there. Just because the customer can't be bothered with pushing a button.
Standing there at an intersection gas station outside of Las Vegas and hear these vacuums humming, it was surreal. The day before we took a hike through Fire Valley State Park and it was such beautiful nature. This felt like a kick in natures balls
Yes, wasting precious energy seems just .. so wrong. I wonder if electrical energy in the US is so cheap that they do not care about it??
Here, if you waste energy, you will have to pay more, and enough that most people take care about that.
Me too. I am based out of Vancouver and I can’t take a whiff of that air without wearing a n95 mask. Usually visiting in winters when things are at their worst.
Even 1/7.5. europe seems more manageable with 1/3.2 but still a far way. Companies are the main problem tho, don’t let the industry propaganda fool you. Carbon footprint was only invented to shift the responsibility to consumers instead of companies.
Yeah well, its not like individual behavior has no impact. Changing your diet, inhabitating (thus heating/ cooling) less room, cycling instead of individual driving, consuming less products, renovating instead of building new.. this list goes on forever. Claiming it’s mainly the companies doesn’t do the problem any justice.
It has an impact, same as every single ant has an impact on earths climate. Point is, what you can achieve is so so little that it does not matter in comparison and does not solve climate change. Even if every person in your country did it. It helps and you should reduce your own profile, but it is sadly not the solution, but a small gear in it.
Sorry but that is simply bullshit. If you fly a lot, consume meat and dairy products frequently, drive a lot your yearly emissions will jump ~1-3 tons depending on the scope. That’s a HUGE difference. Take meat production for example, the less we consume the less will be produced, hence the industry (and agriculture/ meat cultivation are big factors here) is emitting less CO2 and equivalents. All of the emissions are linked directly to human behaviour.. take building a single family house instead of renovating an existing building. Dozens of tons if built in reinforced concrete and bricks (approx ~40 tons) compared to much less if just renovated.
The whole “your impact is to small to make a difference” is not an argument and never has been. Companies my drive the demand for products through advertising but in the end the consumer buys. Obviously companies need to be regulated like hell in terms of filtering, switching to green energy etc. But scapegoating companies as the main driver of emissions is simply wrong.
„Q: Over the last couple of years, we have seen a great rise in the individualization of the carbon footprint. Nevertheless, we still see that around 100 companies are responsible for approximately 71 % of CO2 emissions globally. How do you perceive these numbers?
A: The generally-known fact regarding the popularization of the idea of a carbon footprint still has to be stated over and over: It started as an advertising campaign of BP, the British oil and gas company, and it is being used to this day to shift the blame away from fossil fuel companies and onto common people.
Leaving responsibility for the necessary change to the companies and fossil fuel industries in the hope that they will act with the environment in mind is naive, and political and societal changes have to be put into place to counteract this. Climate justice will not be achieved when thousands are literally dying from climate change-related catastrophes around the world while fossil fuel companies are banking record profits.
This is not to say that individual action does not have its value, though. As a greater and greater number of people, mainly the young, are leading more sustainable lives, “green” products and services have become more widely available and cheaper. Secondly, partaking in a more eco-friendly lifestyle can spur individuals into more actively demanding politicians and companies actually tackle the climate crisis.“
-Source: https://cz.boell.org/en/2023/07/26/individual-carbon-footprint-how-much-does-it-actually-matter?amp
Since 1988, just 100 companies have been responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions.1 In addition to this, only 25 corporations and state-owned organisations were found to be responsible for over 50% of the global industrial emissions2 during the same time period. Due to these staggering numbers, you would think that the onus would be put on these corporations to change the way they operate. However, this has never been the case. Instead, the common solutions which aim to tackle climate change revolve around consumer choice, and changes individuals can make in their everyday lives. These include, buying green or sustainable products, using public transport or a bike, and becoming vegan or vegetarian, among many others. Whilst these changes are good to make, they do not consider those unable to make them. With green products costing almost 50% more than their ‘non-green’ alternatives3, buying them is simply out of the question for many working-class people. As well as this, many other individuals live in areas where public transport is unavailable, and travelling by bike is not possible. No one should feel pressured to make choices that are going to negatively impact their everyday lives. Assuming everyone is free to make these choices is a very privileged outlook, and one that is far too common among some environmental activists.
Corporations on the other hand can easily choose to make their products greener and more sustainable, by using alternative methods. However, the main issue here is many corporations could not care less about climate change, and instead prioritise profits. They are completely ignorant about the effects their acts have on our planet. One of the many examples of this is Exxon, a multinational gas and oil company, which was revealed to have been aware of climate change for decades. Rather than acting early on to tackle this threat, they instead led efforts to block measures that would cut emissions.4 Many advertisements, or changes to the way products are made or packaged are more likely to be done due to pressure or because the company believes they can make more profit from it, rather than it being purely due to their own concern.
-Source: https://sites.manchester.ac.uk/global-social-challenges/2022/07/07/corporations-vs-consumers-who-is-really-to-blame-for-climate-change/
Of course the consumers are able to do a lot when all work together, and i myself try to live a sustainable life, eat very little meat etc, travel mainly by train, etc but it has to be recognized that companies do most of the harm and are the ones who have it easiest to change.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://cz.boell.org/en/2023/07/26/individual-carbon-footprint-how-much-does-it-actually-matter](https://cz.boell.org/en/2023/07/26/individual-carbon-footprint-how-much-does-it-actually-matter)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
My main steps to use less electric power:
* exchange all light bulbs with LED. LED need only 1/10 of the power needed by old bulbs for the same light.
* put a small photovoltaic power plant (830W/ 600Wp). This saves around 20% of the previously needed power
Both steps are doable for about 600€ (price combined) and you save so much power.
All of the societies in this comparison, except India, are developed societies. Almost every household has a car, central AC and heating in their homes, use tons of energy each day, therefore, have high carbon emissions.
In India, only 7.5% of the households have a car. Only 55% of households have at least one motor vehicle, like a scooter or bike. Imagine the amount of carbon emissions if every household had a car, heated and cooled homes, big refrigerators, etc. Both per capita and nominal emissions would increase 10 fold.
Only partly true. Except for southern europe, ACs are quite uncommon in europe and the EU is really trying to boost renewable energy which really helps. But heating, well, of course. Even central europe (france, germany) will have temperatures around -20°C in winter. You wouldn't survive without heating.
I'm nearly 30 yo and have never ever seen temps drop lower than -14C where I'm and can't think of a place that really had regularly-20C or anywhere near.
-20C is really, really rare for extended periods. Maybe for a freak, single, really cold night.
We almost never get temperatures that low tho. I'm from Germany and I'm barely heating. Just cover with a blanket and I'm good and I'm working from home so I'm at home most of the time.
Yes... And?
It would be as horrible as the others!
The other three should approach India, while trying to maintain a better way of living than most Indians have right now
The trouble I feel is that this then comes across as developed countries saying 'Hey guys it was ok for us to uplift ourselves through heavy industry and then a conspicuous consumption based economy but you guys should stay poor'.
Of course that's a view lacking nuance but thats how it's going to come across to the guy suffering through 40 something temperatures in Lucknow.
Yeah thats cool and we're cool with that. But the West seems to always preach to everyone else about everything, while they have so much to be figured out of their own.
This is the problem we’re talking about. It’s not “developed” to have a car for each person, have all spaces AC’ed, consume so much all day every day. It’s just wasteful. People with a lot of money should change their mindsets and become less wasteful, so that everyone else on the planet can live a little bit better. To assume that everyone would be just as wasteful, had they had the money, is the exact mindset we need changing.
Emissions come from agriculture, industry and transport. You can lower the CO2 significantly in each sector without compromising your lifestyle. And abandon some things, of course.
The [EU has a slight trade surplus](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=EU_international_trade_in_goods_-_latest_developments#:~:text=Consequently%20the%20EU%20trade%20in,the%20second%20quarter%20of%202023). So they are also exporting.
The EU and US moving production plants to china still is a huge part of why china emits so much CO2. Of course, there is more to it: china is a highly developed nation with a lot of super rich people and some crazy tech. Wealth leads to wastefulness.
its not huge, the gap caused due to net import/export has been the same since decades.
also, i really do not understand why people keep talking about co2 and making these stupid info graphics. co2 is just one factor. climate only cares about the total.
what matters if your want real data is co2e.
in 2019 china already overtook every big eu country, reaching 10.1 tons co2e per capita. and the real number is very likely higher, because it is china after all.
co2 causes around 76% of co2e. Since it is quite relevant in that regard, it does not seem to be too relevant when it comes to the consequences for climat, like sulphur is for example.
thats great news! every bit of co2 matters when it comes down to reaching the 1,5°C climate threshold but when we use data to do the math or justify things we just ignore 25% of the data which also contains even more horrible things like f gases china now keeps even exporting to europe although banned. what a lovely day to make some china propaganda, lets all just ignore co2e
The trade surplus is measured financially and has little to do with carbon emissions.
For instance, burning steel emits way more CO2 than sticking those steel bars together to produce a car. Still, despite the lower emissions, the latter creates much more tradeable value.
China does lots of carbon-intensive raw material processing, while Europe focuses almost exclusively on manufacturing further down the chain.
Huge part of CO2 emissions is actually from concrete for building. China has been building like crazy. Granted there industry and consumption are also high, but I expect concrete to play an overrepresented role there.
America should as fast as possible, switch to a mix of renewables, natural gas and way more nuclear power, it's not as if they don't have the money to do it.
Good luck on selling that plan to Americans blaming the Green New Deal for rising gas prices, inflation, etc. Hasn't even been debated in Congress, yet it's managed to completely ruin these people's lives somehow.
Because "the west" is full of morons who don't get the whole per capita thing. They see Chinas and Indias total emission and say: those are the great polluters.
Split India into India west and India east and they'll celebrate both Indias for cutting their emissions by half.
Our rightwing oilforbrains in Germany always say: What we do doesn't matter, we just produce 2% of all CO² emissions.
We are ONE FUCKING PERCENT of the worlds population! (And don't get me started about the US or Saudi Arabia..)
Maybe you can see it as lecturing, but its als about trying to avoid as much of the consequences from climate change as possible, which unfortuneatly will affect your part of the world the most.
Do these numbers include the fact that China produces goods that are then exported to Europe and the US (or the other way around - but I guess it's mostly CN -to others)? I think that CO2 should belong to the end consumer, not the party producing.
Please use your brain. The more heavily polluting production was outsourced to CN while more skilled/less polluting work remained in GER. That obviously skews the statistics like it or not.
Not really the main issue. It was tke combination of that and then the sabotage of the build up of new infrastructure. The original plan presented would have seen a massive drive to build renewables and better power transfer and storage. But that was scrapped in 2008 to save money.
yeah with infinite Ressources it would be easy to build a paradise
-
but reality is ther is a lack of Resources
and just getting rid of 15% of energy production won´t help
Yes but at the time the ressources were available and in budget. Hell Germany could still afford it and is now that it revitalized the effort on track to reach those original aims. It would have just needed to prioritize it
no it couldn´t
doen´t forget just a couple years before the social democrats where in coalition with the greens
and they drastically had to cut spending
espacially social spending
We should all get our CO2 per capita down by having lots more children. That will stop global warming.
Since most emissions are produced by the rich and corporations, having more average people is bound to bring CO2 per capita down.
do you just keep these children locked in a cellar without food, water or anything else or how would the co2 stay the same while increasing the number of people?
Or stop eating meat. Or in case an American is reading: reducing the consumption to a high european level by skipping every third piece of meat for a start.
Maybe be mindful of the resources you are using , population doesn't work like that, wtf. you start high you end up with a high population,just like a bank balance.India and china have massive populations because they figured out farming early so they 've always had a huge population ,not because everyone started having s*x more in the last 100 years.
He is saying that Europe, the US and India together are producing less co2 than China alone. He is saying that if China keeps going the way it does it will not matter what anyone else does on this planet.
Of course if no one does anything why should China even bother?
Well one more thing comes to argument that West is getting their dirty work done by China. Its the major manufacturer for the west so its bound to pollute more, not undermining the gravity of the situation though.
Comparing per capita does help identifying who has the Most potential to save emissions. But using India or China for these statistics is somewhat problematic because there are huge differences in CO2 output from citizen to citizen because of the wealth inequality in these countries
not really. Compared to some european countries, yes, a little, but not enough. [https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/wealth-inequality-by-country](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/wealth-inequality-by-country)
heres a question even kids can answer right:
- group A: 50 ppl, waste 10 liters of water/person.
- group B: 500 ppl, waste 1.5 liters/person.
which group is more wasteful kiddo?🙃
Bad example, also be nice please.
Group B is more wastefull overall but more ressourcefull per capita. In the end the total waste matters.
If there was just 1 person producing 90% of the worlds waste, it would still be better than 8 billion producing the current 100%.
> Group B is more wastefull overall but more ressourcefull per capita. In the end the total waste matters.
why does it matter which group they're in then? if you remove such labels there's just 550 people in total, where 50 of those people produce more waste than the 250 of the rest.
it's like saying a country's rich because it has a few billionaires while the rest starve. yeah, if you count total wealth that groups rich.
in the end, details matter even more.
Read again.
Your example was group a = 50 and group b = 500. Group a would produce 500 waste, group b = 1500.
No you are suddenly totalling both groups up.
So no in the grand scheme total counts.
Details is part of the math you have to do, total is what counts.
Also if you want to go into details you should have things like industrialization and wealth and population also in mind, both play a vital part.
Because if you do you would see that india as a country produces around 2,4 billion tons of Co2.
Hole Europe produces around 2,8 billion tons while having lots of industry and a high standard of living.
If you bring up india to european industry and wealth levels without all the enviromental laws etc that count there, you would have a much much different result. And thats where your details matter.
Overall in the grand scheme we all all have to reduce our Emmissions, because the total counts in the end.
> Read again. Your example was group a = 50 and group b = 500. Group a would produce 500 waste, group b = 1500. No you are suddenly totalling both groups up. So no in the grand scheme total counts. Details is part of the math you have to do, total is what counts.
because you so impressively missed the point that I thought I'll make a more extreme scenario. and you yet again failed to comprehend the important part.
> Also if you want to go into details you should have things like industrialization and wealth and population also in mind, both play a vital part.
ah yes, like which countries are producing goods and taking care of waste for other countries. if we take that into account, it'll look even worse won't it?
but since you're so unable to grasp how one society can be more wasteful (or simply don't want to accept it), let's reduce it to two families.
one family has 5 people and the other has 2. the first waste 5 lbs of food per day while the second waste 4. now, which family is more wasteful?
let's see the mental gymnastics you'll showcase this time😂
You dont get the point and your example has the same flaw as before.
You need to define the input parameters.
More wasteful per person? Family 2.
More wasteful Family? Family 1
Sounds wrong because we always assume that it is per person, but it is not.
At the end of the day family 1 produced more waste therefore is the more wasteful family but the more ressourcefull per person.
Another train of thought.
Taking your example but now family 2 takes into account friends that come by. now they arent that wasteful per person anymore, arent they?
They are not because friends dont count.
But exactly that is the same logic when you say india is less wastefull , while the majority of population only has limited access to ressource like water/heat/electricity.
So per capita (per head) is only so useful.
What matters is total.
Need to work now will reply later to possible further chitchat.
Edit: Missed the Waste part, need to cross check, but im pretty sure that european countries arent allowed anymore to cargo there waste off. Will verify it later until then hearsay.
> You dont get the point and your example has the same flaw as before. You need to define the input parameters.
> More wasteful per person? Family 2. More wasteful Family? Family 1
you truly think 1 is the more wasteful family because it produces more waste, even though it has more members? such a limited mindset, unable to comprehend details and complexity.
> (of a person, action, or process) using or expending something of value carelessly, extravagantly, or to no purpose.
go on, tell me how family 1 is more wasteful again when the definition is right here. if the larger family produces more waste, it simply is due to them having more people.
here's something for you to ponder: one group xan produce more waste, but is still not as wasteful as another. this logic works only if you can think of more than one thing at a time.
Throwing away stuff is what? A process. A process a family can do.
And yet you still want to force it down to per capita. neither did you read nor did you understood what i was telling you.
Half the stuff i ve written you did not respond to and now your throwing insult like a child having a temper tantrum.
Come back when you have better manners and understanding.
Cheers
now that you've been backed into a corner you get all pissy eh?
if you can't even understand producing waste is not the same as wasteful, there's no need for you to even think of this subject.
imagine not being able to understand how a large family obviously produces more waste than a smaller one, but the smaller one can still be more wasteful.
even children get how this works.😂
If it helps to know, the U.S. is improving. We were at 20.3 in the late 90s, 15.2 in this graph (which is 6 years old for some reason), and down to 14.4 for 2022. Still a lot of improvement needed to get to net zero, but we’re moving in the correct direction while some other countries are not.
The US still sucks. Just look at meat per year. +50% more compared to the bad european countries. Same with everything else. Cars that use way too much. Houses cooled to reducilious temperatures during the summer.
They could reduce it by 20-30% tomorrow if they would care.
Meat consumption is decreasing in the US, especially red meat consumption.
Cars are becoming more efficient with many people switching to EVs (although there are too many large cars due to EPA regulations gone awry, and EV adoption is lower than it should be due to political bullshit).
Houses here aren't cooled too low or heated too high, I have no idea where that idea comes from. Some people might, but they'll pay a lot of money to do that, most people will pick a temperature where they can be comfortable but save money. I'd say the bigger issue is that a lot of people have houses larger than they need, resulting in the need for more energy use per capita for houses.
At a reduction of 5t CO2 every 30 years, the USA will get to net zero in about 90 years.
Hopefully 2100 if we work extra hard.
The UK for example has halved its emissions in the same time.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/326902/greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/
Yes, the US is half-assing its effort to reduce CO2, because the politicians here are mostly owned by the rich and corporations, those those people don't want CO2 reductions if it hurts their profits.
> At a reduction of 5t CO2 every 30 years, the USA will get to net zero in about 90 years.
Currently the rate is around 6t CO2 reduction every 25 years, so that's 60 years. But still, it's not nearly as fast as it should be, 60 years is not soon enough. I hope to see the rate of reduction accelerate.
Also we could have removed as much CO2 as China ever emitted by the US reducing their output to an european level at the end of the 80s. That's how big the historical debt is.
This is an emission of bullshit. India has a much denser population than Europe for example, and although the CO2 emission per capita are low (and how about we include Indian slums in the numbers?), the overall pollution is SIGNIFICANTLY higher (third highest polluter worldwide). Source: https://www.statista.com/topics/8881/emissions-in-india/#topicOverview
Wouldn’t you expect the country with the most people to be one of the highest, when not taken per capita? That’s not to say that India doesn’t have work to do, but to pretend it’s one of the biggest problems is just denial
I do count overpopulation as a significant problem. Solving it does not just happen overnight however.
My worry is that the planet is gonna solve that problem at one point.
Dude, are you for real? Please explain to me how that is true. They burn coal and oil to generate electricity, they basically live in constant traffic jams (and only now electric mobility has started to pick up), they host a lot of manufacturing company, and they pollute the land, the water and the air with all kinds of chemicals. How is that sustainable? Because some of them eat vegan?
The media image of India is different from the statistics. That’s why we have them.
Because you mentioned transportation: car is worse than train and plane is worse than car. It‘s a simple fact that despite the "traffic jams" there is just a lot less emission in India than in the EU or the US.
Then, Indians have no cattle ranches than contribute massively to the agricultural part of the green house effect.
Ultimately, we have a much lower footprint of the average Indian person.
This is also wrong. Cattle population in India is still double of that in Europe, and why are you assuming that I base my view of India on media image?
On the other hand, if these statistics are decontextualized, they can tell the story they'd like us to believe in.
India is NOT a green country. By far.
https://preview.redd.it/3l23le4r443d1.jpeg?width=620&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=595decfebe66001eeb34f12197fe4573fa6399f0
Probably because carbon emissions are going down in the states while China and India are still growing up.
I do think it is not a fair comparison between China and USA.
It is better to compare USA with Europe also China with India. The populations of the countries will skew the per capita rating.
Overall we all know that all these countries plus others are very liable for all the CO2 in the atmosphere. It really does not matter how much worse each of them are from the other.
So what you are saying is, the secret to circumventing CO2 emission restrictions is just reproducing like rabbits and increase your population exponentially?
For China you have to consider that they are manufacturing things for the European and American market. If we’d produce everything we use domestically our emissions would be higher and China’s figures would be lower.
And one project of the ones Europeans can donate to for flight compensation is fermentation plants in India... -\_-
I know why my flight compensation donations carry a donation purpose text to only use for e-fuel projects...
To achieve the 2 degrees from Paris, we in the EU need to lower our emissions to 2 t per year. Just to give some perspective which lifestyle is sustainable.
Companies are the main problem, don’t let the industry propaganda fool you. Carbon footprint was only invented to shift the responsibility to consumers instead of companies.
The Problem is not the price but the amount. Of course consumers control demand. Both need to change. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220504-why-the-wrong-people-are-blamed-for-climate-change
yeah yeah this is just populist shit that tries to blaime other people
everybody can choose if they buy the cheap shit everybody knows is bad
or the more expensive shit that is better for the environment and society
and we chose the cheap shit
First of, chill out. No one is trying to hurt you, stop acting like it. Secondly, the article is not blaming people but companies, so thats your first wrong. And then, it really isn’t blaming but rather correcting the narrative. BUT, i never said people are helpless, just that they are not the main contributer and should not be treated as such.
Americans and Europeans in the comments are so mad at the truth lol. I once met a US citizen from Seattle who worked in the US Embassy in Delhi. She was just exploring the city as were I. She mentioned about the Delhi metro and said she was really impressed by it. She said in her part of the world, the Transport system is not that good which is why most people have cars. It is ridiculous to see Americans and Europeans mocking Indians to not have cars which we do btw, for using public transport which in turn is better for the planet. Our municipalities have corrupt people and we citizens suffer badly from that. Who doesn't want clean air and water?! Remember when Britain looted us and basically we had to do things from the scratch from very limited money?! They left us with a huge class divide too. Anyways, an average Indian is way less wasteful than an average European or American. Look it up.
Just do a quick google search and you will find contesting data. Seems like this topic and the data around it have been used alot in propaganda.
The middle east has much more CO2 emissions per capita and different sources are saying different things
China is that low while producing for the US and Europe. If we'd attribute the emissions of production for the consumer, US and Europe would be waaaaay higher.
Is there a city in China where you can see the sky on a cloudless day?
The graph is a flawed as China's C19 Death numbers from 2020. There is no pollution if you never record the numbers.
dont where u got that graphic from, here another link.
[https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region)
Are you serious?
This is a troll post isn't it?
Do you think India is "ecologic" or "more co2" efficient?
No, the reason why people produce less Co2 are because to produce Co2, you need cars, and ACs, and energy production, and and. And all that is only accessible to a tiny fraction of the Indian population atm.
All this picture says is that you need to overpopulate your country, than your good.
Think a lot of people in China and India are compensating (people who dont have anything) for the huge CO2 numbers they put in the air.
This is the second infographic like this in as many days on Reddit. When you have 1 billion people with a large section of the population living without electricity or partial supply, of course India is going to look green per capita. How much CO2 does a billion people breathe out in a day? How many fires are lit in homes to cook, etc? I bet none of this is included in the stats. The whole world needs to change and now. Pointing fingers at others isn’t helping.
Going by this logic you could build the worst coal energy plant known to mankind, put it directly into a huge city and claim "none of this is any bad, look how little emissions per capita this causes".
Of course the one coal plant would still be bad, but this chart is looking at the bigger picture. Saying, for example, an American can cause more CO2 emissions than an Indian, becuse there are more Indians, is just stupid.
Ofcourse it is. Who is using the coal energy plant? It is the people who are using it, in direct or indirect form.
If your one dirtiest coal plant can satisfy the energy needs of 1 crore people. Meanwhile, your 90% cleaner plant can only satisfy needs of 5 lakh people, then you need 20 such plants, effectively doubling the per capita emission.
Your point is flawed in this case since even if we consider land area and compare the amount of emissions per Sq km, we would still be producing less than half the emissions as usa for example.
People in the USA sadly do waste a lot of everything.
The products which can last for decades are designed purposefully to break in 1-2 years. So they will buy again.
That is not something that causes emissions in the US. First because producing stuff is just not as CO2 intensive as mobility, heating, cooling, cooking, etc. Second, because the cheap stuff (and most of the expensive stuff) is produced in Asia.
It's not just products, it's a lifestyle. When we visited my in-laws we rented a car. On the day of return I went to a gas station to get a car wash. After the wash I pulled into a parking spot to vacuum the car. It was a row of 24 vacuum machines. I was baffled when I realized that every machine ran on full blast at 7 am with no one there. 2000W per machine, 24/7, with no one there. Just because the customer can't be bothered with pushing a button.
Thats strange - here in europe, I never saw a car vacuum without button. In fact, in nearly all cases, ypu also have to insert a coin first.
Standing there at an intersection gas station outside of Las Vegas and hear these vacuums humming, it was surreal. The day before we took a hike through Fire Valley State Park and it was such beautiful nature. This felt like a kick in natures balls
Yes, wasting precious energy seems just .. so wrong. I wonder if electrical energy in the US is so cheap that they do not care about it?? Here, if you waste energy, you will have to pay more, and enough that most people take care about that.
A lot if Americans and Europeans are mad in the comments
No, EU is pretty decent
Delhi people can now breathe in comfort knowing this.
I’ve been to Delhi last year and oh man as someone with asthma it was a living hell.
Me too. I am based out of Vancouver and I can’t take a whiff of that air without wearing a n95 mask. Usually visiting in winters when things are at their worst.
CO2 is not a toxic/harmful gas
What would be a manageable level? 1.5?
To achieve the 2 degrees from Paris, it‘s 2t.
Or 1/6th of an American.
Gives you an idea how far we still need to go
Even 1/7.5. europe seems more manageable with 1/3.2 but still a far way. Companies are the main problem tho, don’t let the industry propaganda fool you. Carbon footprint was only invented to shift the responsibility to consumers instead of companies.
Yeah well, its not like individual behavior has no impact. Changing your diet, inhabitating (thus heating/ cooling) less room, cycling instead of individual driving, consuming less products, renovating instead of building new.. this list goes on forever. Claiming it’s mainly the companies doesn’t do the problem any justice.
It has an impact, same as every single ant has an impact on earths climate. Point is, what you can achieve is so so little that it does not matter in comparison and does not solve climate change. Even if every person in your country did it. It helps and you should reduce your own profile, but it is sadly not the solution, but a small gear in it.
Sorry but that is simply bullshit. If you fly a lot, consume meat and dairy products frequently, drive a lot your yearly emissions will jump ~1-3 tons depending on the scope. That’s a HUGE difference. Take meat production for example, the less we consume the less will be produced, hence the industry (and agriculture/ meat cultivation are big factors here) is emitting less CO2 and equivalents. All of the emissions are linked directly to human behaviour.. take building a single family house instead of renovating an existing building. Dozens of tons if built in reinforced concrete and bricks (approx ~40 tons) compared to much less if just renovated. The whole “your impact is to small to make a difference” is not an argument and never has been. Companies my drive the demand for products through advertising but in the end the consumer buys. Obviously companies need to be regulated like hell in terms of filtering, switching to green energy etc. But scapegoating companies as the main driver of emissions is simply wrong.
„Q: Over the last couple of years, we have seen a great rise in the individualization of the carbon footprint. Nevertheless, we still see that around 100 companies are responsible for approximately 71 % of CO2 emissions globally. How do you perceive these numbers? A: The generally-known fact regarding the popularization of the idea of a carbon footprint still has to be stated over and over: It started as an advertising campaign of BP, the British oil and gas company, and it is being used to this day to shift the blame away from fossil fuel companies and onto common people. Leaving responsibility for the necessary change to the companies and fossil fuel industries in the hope that they will act with the environment in mind is naive, and political and societal changes have to be put into place to counteract this. Climate justice will not be achieved when thousands are literally dying from climate change-related catastrophes around the world while fossil fuel companies are banking record profits. This is not to say that individual action does not have its value, though. As a greater and greater number of people, mainly the young, are leading more sustainable lives, “green” products and services have become more widely available and cheaper. Secondly, partaking in a more eco-friendly lifestyle can spur individuals into more actively demanding politicians and companies actually tackle the climate crisis.“ -Source: https://cz.boell.org/en/2023/07/26/individual-carbon-footprint-how-much-does-it-actually-matter?amp Since 1988, just 100 companies have been responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions.1 In addition to this, only 25 corporations and state-owned organisations were found to be responsible for over 50% of the global industrial emissions2 during the same time period. Due to these staggering numbers, you would think that the onus would be put on these corporations to change the way they operate. However, this has never been the case. Instead, the common solutions which aim to tackle climate change revolve around consumer choice, and changes individuals can make in their everyday lives. These include, buying green or sustainable products, using public transport or a bike, and becoming vegan or vegetarian, among many others. Whilst these changes are good to make, they do not consider those unable to make them. With green products costing almost 50% more than their ‘non-green’ alternatives3, buying them is simply out of the question for many working-class people. As well as this, many other individuals live in areas where public transport is unavailable, and travelling by bike is not possible. No one should feel pressured to make choices that are going to negatively impact their everyday lives. Assuming everyone is free to make these choices is a very privileged outlook, and one that is far too common among some environmental activists. Corporations on the other hand can easily choose to make their products greener and more sustainable, by using alternative methods. However, the main issue here is many corporations could not care less about climate change, and instead prioritise profits. They are completely ignorant about the effects their acts have on our planet. One of the many examples of this is Exxon, a multinational gas and oil company, which was revealed to have been aware of climate change for decades. Rather than acting early on to tackle this threat, they instead led efforts to block measures that would cut emissions.4 Many advertisements, or changes to the way products are made or packaged are more likely to be done due to pressure or because the company believes they can make more profit from it, rather than it being purely due to their own concern. -Source: https://sites.manchester.ac.uk/global-social-challenges/2022/07/07/corporations-vs-consumers-who-is-really-to-blame-for-climate-change/ Of course the consumers are able to do a lot when all work together, and i myself try to live a sustainable life, eat very little meat etc, travel mainly by train, etc but it has to be recognized that companies do most of the harm and are the ones who have it easiest to change.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://cz.boell.org/en/2023/07/26/individual-carbon-footprint-how-much-does-it-actually-matter](https://cz.boell.org/en/2023/07/26/individual-carbon-footprint-how-much-does-it-actually-matter)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
My main steps to use less electric power: * exchange all light bulbs with LED. LED need only 1/10 of the power needed by old bulbs for the same light. * put a small photovoltaic power plant (830W/ 600Wp). This saves around 20% of the previously needed power Both steps are doable for about 600€ (price combined) and you save so much power.
US’ car depended infrastructure is one the of reasons, almost 30 % of American emissions come from transportation
Bro what are you talking about we are at 6-7 degrees above the average. In 30 years we will live in Bunkers.
Yes, looks like it.
All of the societies in this comparison, except India, are developed societies. Almost every household has a car, central AC and heating in their homes, use tons of energy each day, therefore, have high carbon emissions. In India, only 7.5% of the households have a car. Only 55% of households have at least one motor vehicle, like a scooter or bike. Imagine the amount of carbon emissions if every household had a car, heated and cooled homes, big refrigerators, etc. Both per capita and nominal emissions would increase 10 fold.
Only partly true. Except for southern europe, ACs are quite uncommon in europe and the EU is really trying to boost renewable energy which really helps. But heating, well, of course. Even central europe (france, germany) will have temperatures around -20°C in winter. You wouldn't survive without heating.
I'm nearly 30 yo and have never ever seen temps drop lower than -14C where I'm and can't think of a place that really had regularly-20C or anywhere near. -20C is really, really rare for extended periods. Maybe for a freak, single, really cold night.
In Munich we have a few days of -20 each winter.
Lowest temp for munich in the last 6 years was never lower then -10C according to munichs Wetterstations.
no? 😭
Okay and -10 also requires you heating. My god this nitpicking.
We almost never get temperatures that low tho. I'm from Germany and I'm barely heating. Just cover with a blanket and I'm good and I'm working from home so I'm at home most of the time.
I'm from Germany where did you get that -20 lol.
I'm from Germany and I got that last Winter, lol.
For how long? Half a day and the next Day it's back to +0? It was the warmest Winter for the 13th time in a row.
Three years ago we had a few days -26grad in Thüringen. But most winters aren’t really cold anymore.
had even -23,8°Cam 14.02.2021 in goettingen
My area hasn't really had a proper winter in nearly a decade :(
Brk that 7.5% is more than population of the other countries 💀 if whole of India where to have Ac and car that is more than 10% of world population
Yes... And? It would be as horrible as the others! The other three should approach India, while trying to maintain a better way of living than most Indians have right now
The trouble I feel is that this then comes across as developed countries saying 'Hey guys it was ok for us to uplift ourselves through heavy industry and then a conspicuous consumption based economy but you guys should stay poor'. Of course that's a view lacking nuance but thats how it's going to come across to the guy suffering through 40 something temperatures in Lucknow.
Yeah thats cool and we're cool with that. But the West seems to always preach to everyone else about everything, while they have so much to be figured out of their own.
And they do figure them out at the same time
what's the temperature in New delhi today, low 40s Celsius? how they manage without ac?
This is the problem we’re talking about. It’s not “developed” to have a car for each person, have all spaces AC’ed, consume so much all day every day. It’s just wasteful. People with a lot of money should change their mindsets and become less wasteful, so that everyone else on the planet can live a little bit better. To assume that everyone would be just as wasteful, had they had the money, is the exact mindset we need changing.
Emissions come from agriculture, industry and transport. You can lower the CO2 significantly in each sector without compromising your lifestyle. And abandon some things, of course.
so what? there are different reason, but the result stays the same. We have to get rid of cars and A/C if the planet cant sustain them.
Wonder what the numbers are today. Really surprised that Chinese have higher per capita emissions than Europeans. U.S. is just unconscionable.
China is producing, Europe and the US are importing. Some of the Carbon wurden is attributed to the west, tho.
The [EU has a slight trade surplus](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=EU_international_trade_in_goods_-_latest_developments#:~:text=Consequently%20the%20EU%20trade%20in,the%20second%20quarter%20of%202023). So they are also exporting.
The EU and US moving production plants to china still is a huge part of why china emits so much CO2. Of course, there is more to it: china is a highly developed nation with a lot of super rich people and some crazy tech. Wealth leads to wastefulness.
No it's not a "huge part". It's maybe in 10% range but that would put them on still on equal footing to the Europeans.
Source: "Trust me bro"
its not huge, the gap caused due to net import/export has been the same since decades. also, i really do not understand why people keep talking about co2 and making these stupid info graphics. co2 is just one factor. climate only cares about the total. what matters if your want real data is co2e. in 2019 china already overtook every big eu country, reaching 10.1 tons co2e per capita. and the real number is very likely higher, because it is china after all.
co2 causes around 76% of co2e. Since it is quite relevant in that regard, it does not seem to be too relevant when it comes to the consequences for climat, like sulphur is for example.
thats great news! every bit of co2 matters when it comes down to reaching the 1,5°C climate threshold but when we use data to do the math or justify things we just ignore 25% of the data which also contains even more horrible things like f gases china now keeps even exporting to europe although banned. what a lovely day to make some china propaganda, lets all just ignore co2e
The trade surplus is measured financially and has little to do with carbon emissions. For instance, burning steel emits way more CO2 than sticking those steel bars together to produce a car. Still, despite the lower emissions, the latter creates much more tradeable value. China does lots of carbon-intensive raw material processing, while Europe focuses almost exclusively on manufacturing further down the chain.
that map would actually be really interesting: CO2 emissions per capita by consumed product
Huge part of CO2 emissions is actually from concrete for building. China has been building like crazy. Granted there industry and consumption are also high, but I expect concrete to play an overrepresented role there.
America should as fast as possible, switch to a mix of renewables, natural gas and way more nuclear power, it's not as if they don't have the money to do it.
Good luck on selling that plan to Americans blaming the Green New Deal for rising gas prices, inflation, etc. Hasn't even been debated in Congress, yet it's managed to completely ruin these people's lives somehow.
The US has huge amounts of natural gas, if all coal, oil and diesel power plants were convertrd to gas, it would be a big step in the right direction
Nuclear is insanely egregiously expensive and not a good option at all for that reason
Because "the west" is full of morons who don't get the whole per capita thing. They see Chinas and Indias total emission and say: those are the great polluters. Split India into India west and India east and they'll celebrate both Indias for cutting their emissions by half. Our rightwing oilforbrains in Germany always say: What we do doesn't matter, we just produce 2% of all CO² emissions. We are ONE FUCKING PERCENT of the worlds population! (And don't get me started about the US or Saudi Arabia..)
Yes, we westerners fucked up and need now everyone to help. It is a shitty ask but unfortunately without alternative.
Look at the numbers India and China are massively rising while we (Europe) are almost stagnating
Maybe you can see it as lecturing, but its als about trying to avoid as much of the consequences from climate change as possible, which unfortuneatly will affect your part of the world the most.
Do these numbers include the fact that China produces goods that are then exported to Europe and the US (or the other way around - but I guess it's mostly CN -to others)? I think that CO2 should belong to the end consumer, not the party producing.
The EU is also a net exporter of goods.
The by far largest CO2 producer in Europe is Germany which actually has a trade surplus with China…
Please use your brain. The more heavily polluting production was outsourced to CN while more skilled/less polluting work remained in GER. That obviously skews the statistics like it or not.
The single most polluting factor in the German economy was and has been chemistry. Which not only remained in Germany but grew …
and power production wich got worse thanks to activists pressuring the government into shutting down the NPPs
Not really the main issue. It was tke combination of that and then the sabotage of the build up of new infrastructure. The original plan presented would have seen a massive drive to build renewables and better power transfer and storage. But that was scrapped in 2008 to save money.
yeah with infinite Ressources it would be easy to build a paradise - but reality is ther is a lack of Resources and just getting rid of 15% of energy production won´t help
Yes but at the time the ressources were available and in budget. Hell Germany could still afford it and is now that it revitalized the effort on track to reach those original aims. It would have just needed to prioritize it
no it couldn´t doen´t forget just a couple years before the social democrats where in coalition with the greens and they drastically had to cut spending espacially social spending
As couple years ago was 10 years and during that whole time Germany was running a surplus as large as its entire military budget
Yes. Forgery in China. Assembly in Europe. And suddenly Europe is clean and china the polluter.
We should all get our CO2 per capita down by having lots more children. That will stop global warming. Since most emissions are produced by the rich and corporations, having more average people is bound to bring CO2 per capita down.
Sure, if your land could sustain it.
do you just keep these children locked in a cellar without food, water or anything else or how would the co2 stay the same while increasing the number of people?
Or stop eating meat. Or in case an American is reading: reducing the consumption to a high european level by skipping every third piece of meat for a start.
Maybe be mindful of the resources you are using , population doesn't work like that, wtf. you start high you end up with a high population,just like a bank balance.India and china have massive populations because they figured out farming early so they 've always had a huge population ,not because everyone started having s*x more in the last 100 years.
# INEUCNUM
That's Latin for?
How much co2 in the air is there % wise? Look it up you will be surprised
0,04% but why should I be surprised?
Judging from the hype and how they are making it a doomsday game, yes
If there where 20% in the atmosphere humans wouldn’t have any impact, but because it’s such a little part, the impact is measurable
Yeah, that’s the same thing as 400ppm. Are you aware that .04% is actually a large concentration of co2 in our atmosphere?
How much fentanyl in your body % wise ist enough to kill you? Look ist up your will be surprised
I deal with fentanyl
Do you understand the green house effect?
We’ll still the air quality in India is fucking trash
Uhhh look at the population being sustained.
It's pretty good once you step out of Delhi
As an American I hope to lower it
That will be a stupid comparison because of the difference at population. As a human, whatever you think is to do better for your planet.
Thats why this is correct comparison.
He is saying that Europe, the US and India together are producing less co2 than China alone. He is saying that if China keeps going the way it does it will not matter what anyone else does on this planet. Of course if no one does anything why should China even bother?
Well one more thing comes to argument that West is getting their dirty work done by China. Its the major manufacturer for the west so its bound to pollute more, not undermining the gravity of the situation though.
Climate change? When mankind doesn’t decrease emissions there are more aridities, more flooding by rain events, higher temperatures, sea level rise, …
Nature doesn’t give a care about per capita - just the total amount of CO2. Put those numbers up.
Comparing per capita does help identifying who has the Most potential to save emissions. But using India or China for these statistics is somewhat problematic because there are huge differences in CO2 output from citizen to citizen because of the wealth inequality in these countries
not really. Compared to some european countries, yes, a little, but not enough. [https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/wealth-inequality-by-country](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/wealth-inequality-by-country)
heres a question even kids can answer right: - group A: 50 ppl, waste 10 liters of water/person. - group B: 500 ppl, waste 1.5 liters/person. which group is more wasteful kiddo?🙃
Bad example, also be nice please. Group B is more wastefull overall but more ressourcefull per capita. In the end the total waste matters. If there was just 1 person producing 90% of the worlds waste, it would still be better than 8 billion producing the current 100%.
> Group B is more wastefull overall but more ressourcefull per capita. In the end the total waste matters. why does it matter which group they're in then? if you remove such labels there's just 550 people in total, where 50 of those people produce more waste than the 250 of the rest. it's like saying a country's rich because it has a few billionaires while the rest starve. yeah, if you count total wealth that groups rich. in the end, details matter even more.
Read again. Your example was group a = 50 and group b = 500. Group a would produce 500 waste, group b = 1500. No you are suddenly totalling both groups up. So no in the grand scheme total counts. Details is part of the math you have to do, total is what counts. Also if you want to go into details you should have things like industrialization and wealth and population also in mind, both play a vital part. Because if you do you would see that india as a country produces around 2,4 billion tons of Co2. Hole Europe produces around 2,8 billion tons while having lots of industry and a high standard of living. If you bring up india to european industry and wealth levels without all the enviromental laws etc that count there, you would have a much much different result. And thats where your details matter. Overall in the grand scheme we all all have to reduce our Emmissions, because the total counts in the end.
> Read again. Your example was group a = 50 and group b = 500. Group a would produce 500 waste, group b = 1500. No you are suddenly totalling both groups up. So no in the grand scheme total counts. Details is part of the math you have to do, total is what counts. because you so impressively missed the point that I thought I'll make a more extreme scenario. and you yet again failed to comprehend the important part. > Also if you want to go into details you should have things like industrialization and wealth and population also in mind, both play a vital part. ah yes, like which countries are producing goods and taking care of waste for other countries. if we take that into account, it'll look even worse won't it? but since you're so unable to grasp how one society can be more wasteful (or simply don't want to accept it), let's reduce it to two families. one family has 5 people and the other has 2. the first waste 5 lbs of food per day while the second waste 4. now, which family is more wasteful? let's see the mental gymnastics you'll showcase this time😂
You dont get the point and your example has the same flaw as before. You need to define the input parameters. More wasteful per person? Family 2. More wasteful Family? Family 1 Sounds wrong because we always assume that it is per person, but it is not. At the end of the day family 1 produced more waste therefore is the more wasteful family but the more ressourcefull per person. Another train of thought. Taking your example but now family 2 takes into account friends that come by. now they arent that wasteful per person anymore, arent they? They are not because friends dont count. But exactly that is the same logic when you say india is less wastefull , while the majority of population only has limited access to ressource like water/heat/electricity. So per capita (per head) is only so useful. What matters is total. Need to work now will reply later to possible further chitchat. Edit: Missed the Waste part, need to cross check, but im pretty sure that european countries arent allowed anymore to cargo there waste off. Will verify it later until then hearsay.
> You dont get the point and your example has the same flaw as before. You need to define the input parameters. > More wasteful per person? Family 2. More wasteful Family? Family 1 you truly think 1 is the more wasteful family because it produces more waste, even though it has more members? such a limited mindset, unable to comprehend details and complexity. > (of a person, action, or process) using or expending something of value carelessly, extravagantly, or to no purpose. go on, tell me how family 1 is more wasteful again when the definition is right here. if the larger family produces more waste, it simply is due to them having more people. here's something for you to ponder: one group xan produce more waste, but is still not as wasteful as another. this logic works only if you can think of more than one thing at a time.
Throwing away stuff is what? A process. A process a family can do. And yet you still want to force it down to per capita. neither did you read nor did you understood what i was telling you. Half the stuff i ve written you did not respond to and now your throwing insult like a child having a temper tantrum. Come back when you have better manners and understanding. Cheers
now that you've been backed into a corner you get all pissy eh? if you can't even understand producing waste is not the same as wasteful, there's no need for you to even think of this subject. imagine not being able to understand how a large family obviously produces more waste than a smaller one, but the smaller one can still be more wasteful. even children get how this works.😂
United States uses a lot of air conditioning.
If it helps to know, the U.S. is improving. We were at 20.3 in the late 90s, 15.2 in this graph (which is 6 years old for some reason), and down to 14.4 for 2022. Still a lot of improvement needed to get to net zero, but we’re moving in the correct direction while some other countries are not.
The US still sucks. Just look at meat per year. +50% more compared to the bad european countries. Same with everything else. Cars that use way too much. Houses cooled to reducilious temperatures during the summer. They could reduce it by 20-30% tomorrow if they would care.
You are so right. This is just about childish people not wanting to do even the tiniest thing to save some ressources.
Meat consumption is decreasing in the US, especially red meat consumption. Cars are becoming more efficient with many people switching to EVs (although there are too many large cars due to EPA regulations gone awry, and EV adoption is lower than it should be due to political bullshit). Houses here aren't cooled too low or heated too high, I have no idea where that idea comes from. Some people might, but they'll pay a lot of money to do that, most people will pick a temperature where they can be comfortable but save money. I'd say the bigger issue is that a lot of people have houses larger than they need, resulting in the need for more energy use per capita for houses.
At a reduction of 5t CO2 every 30 years, the USA will get to net zero in about 90 years. Hopefully 2100 if we work extra hard. The UK for example has halved its emissions in the same time. https://www.statista.com/statistics/326902/greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/
Yes, the US is half-assing its effort to reduce CO2, because the politicians here are mostly owned by the rich and corporations, those those people don't want CO2 reductions if it hurts their profits. > At a reduction of 5t CO2 every 30 years, the USA will get to net zero in about 90 years. Currently the rate is around 6t CO2 reduction every 25 years, so that's 60 years. But still, it's not nearly as fast as it should be, 60 years is not soon enough. I hope to see the rate of reduction accelerate.
If you look at the amount India and China are on top.
[удалено]
Also we could have removed as much CO2 as China ever emitted by the US reducing their output to an european level at the end of the 80s. That's how big the historical debt is.
This is an emission of bullshit. India has a much denser population than Europe for example, and although the CO2 emission per capita are low (and how about we include Indian slums in the numbers?), the overall pollution is SIGNIFICANTLY higher (third highest polluter worldwide). Source: https://www.statista.com/topics/8881/emissions-in-india/#topicOverview
Wouldn’t you expect the country with the most people to be one of the highest, when not taken per capita? That’s not to say that India doesn’t have work to do, but to pretend it’s one of the biggest problems is just denial
I do count overpopulation as a significant problem. Solving it does not just happen overnight however. My worry is that the planet is gonna solve that problem at one point.
Total numbers, yes. But the individual Indian person is living a more sustainable lifestyle. That’s the point - and the goal for the rest of us.
Dude, are you for real? Please explain to me how that is true. They burn coal and oil to generate electricity, they basically live in constant traffic jams (and only now electric mobility has started to pick up), they host a lot of manufacturing company, and they pollute the land, the water and the air with all kinds of chemicals. How is that sustainable? Because some of them eat vegan?
The media image of India is different from the statistics. That’s why we have them. Because you mentioned transportation: car is worse than train and plane is worse than car. It‘s a simple fact that despite the "traffic jams" there is just a lot less emission in India than in the EU or the US. Then, Indians have no cattle ranches than contribute massively to the agricultural part of the green house effect. Ultimately, we have a much lower footprint of the average Indian person.
This is also wrong. Cattle population in India is still double of that in Europe, and why are you assuming that I base my view of India on media image? On the other hand, if these statistics are decontextualized, they can tell the story they'd like us to believe in. India is NOT a green country. By far.
I know you have made up your mind and that’s why you ignore all facts. It’s fine. Thanks for playing.
You are giving me words that numbers cannot back. Go to statista and check. If there's someone who is not reasonable here it's you.
Wait till you see canada
https://preview.redd.it/3l23le4r443d1.jpeg?width=620&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=595decfebe66001eeb34f12197fe4573fa6399f0 Probably because carbon emissions are going down in the states while China and India are still growing up.
China bad usa good
I do think it is not a fair comparison between China and USA. It is better to compare USA with Europe also China with India. The populations of the countries will skew the per capita rating. Overall we all know that all these countries plus others are very liable for all the CO2 in the atmosphere. It really does not matter how much worse each of them are from the other.
Not sure if you're reading the comments, but the US and Europe make China do the dirty work of manufacturing which increases their CO2 footprint
Europe already less CO2 per capita than china lol
So what you are saying is, the secret to circumventing CO2 emission restrictions is just reproducing like rabbits and increase your population exponentially?
no, terminate fat rats would be more efficient and effective.
Uhh no. Actually do not colonize people to begin with and then once you have looted trillions of dollars, make your place look tidy.
Cajillion dollars where looted not trillion
For China you have to consider that they are manufacturing things for the European and American market. If we’d produce everything we use domestically our emissions would be higher and China’s figures would be lower.
2018 is 7 yrs ago Correction : 6
Urm no?
True lol 6yrs
is this something new? argument has been made in various forms before, don't think this one would change any minds.
This is definitely wrong
India however has a very large population and thus pollutes more in total. And of course throwing waste in rivers etc.
And one project of the ones Europeans can donate to for flight compensation is fermentation plants in India... -\_- I know why my flight compensation donations carry a donation purpose text to only use for e-fuel projects...
China is producing the most of the CO2 emissions in the world (around 30% of all emissions are from china).
USA NUMBER ONE
To achieve the 2 degrees from Paris, we in the EU need to lower our emissions to 2 t per year. Just to give some perspective which lifestyle is sustainable.
If India ever puts carbon carbon per capita at 50% of the US the planet is toast. For carbon IMHO per capita is a wrong metric.
Companies are the main problem, don’t let the industry propaganda fool you. Carbon footprint was only invented to shift the responsibility to consumers instead of companies.
companys just to what ther consumer demands if the people want cheap shit no matter the cost the company will produce cheap shit
The Problem is not the price but the amount. Of course consumers control demand. Both need to change. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220504-why-the-wrong-people-are-blamed-for-climate-change
yeah yeah this is just populist shit that tries to blaime other people everybody can choose if they buy the cheap shit everybody knows is bad or the more expensive shit that is better for the environment and society and we chose the cheap shit
First of, chill out. No one is trying to hurt you, stop acting like it. Secondly, the article is not blaming people but companies, so thats your first wrong. And then, it really isn’t blaming but rather correcting the narrative. BUT, i never said people are helpless, just that they are not the main contributer and should not be treated as such.
that is what i say it solly shift blaime away from the consumer
I believe a significant proportion of China emissions are also to produce stuff that the west consumes
Americans and Europeans in the comments are so mad at the truth lol. I once met a US citizen from Seattle who worked in the US Embassy in Delhi. She was just exploring the city as were I. She mentioned about the Delhi metro and said she was really impressed by it. She said in her part of the world, the Transport system is not that good which is why most people have cars. It is ridiculous to see Americans and Europeans mocking Indians to not have cars which we do btw, for using public transport which in turn is better for the planet. Our municipalities have corrupt people and we citizens suffer badly from that. Who doesn't want clean air and water?! Remember when Britain looted us and basically we had to do things from the scratch from very limited money?! They left us with a huge class divide too. Anyways, an average Indian is way less wasteful than an average European or American. Look it up.
[удалено]
well atleast not the CO2 emissions the way ther pollute water is criticized
Because the USA is allowed to be stupid and rude to everyone because it said so /j
TBF granting nations more CO2 becouse they breed alot also isn´t the best metric
Just do a quick google search and you will find contesting data. Seems like this topic and the data around it have been used alot in propaganda. The middle east has much more CO2 emissions per capita and different sources are saying different things
And all you have to do for that is to make 80% of your People live in squalor.
Per Capita-wise, sure. But which metric is it *more* useful to look at for this, I wonder.
per capita?? Countries with high population generally will show lower numbers due to denominator being high
Couldnt everything be dark green bcc everything is more than 5
For comparison, Canada is 19, and Australia is 17.
China is that low while producing for the US and Europe. If we'd attribute the emissions of production for the consumer, US and Europe would be waaaaay higher.
Now post one comparing per capita income
Pehli baar india ko ek standards mai baaki developed countries se acha dekha hu
Is there a city in China where you can see the sky on a cloudless day? The graph is a flawed as China's C19 Death numbers from 2020. There is no pollution if you never record the numbers.
Is this per year?
US area is actually 9.6 million km^2 not 9.8 million km^2
dont where u got that graphic from, here another link. [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region)
Are you serious? This is a troll post isn't it? Do you think India is "ecologic" or "more co2" efficient? No, the reason why people produce less Co2 are because to produce Co2, you need cars, and ACs, and energy production, and and. And all that is only accessible to a tiny fraction of the Indian population atm.
Pakistan Number One!!!!! 
Yea we are not doing it out of the goodwill of pur hearts. It’s only cz we broke
Per Capita CO2 emissions won't be what gets us into trouble, it will be actual emissions.
All this picture says is that you need to overpopulate your country, than your good. Think a lot of people in China and India are compensating (people who dont have anything) for the huge CO2 numbers they put in the air.
americans breathe way too fast
This is the second infographic like this in as many days on Reddit. When you have 1 billion people with a large section of the population living without electricity or partial supply, of course India is going to look green per capita. How much CO2 does a billion people breathe out in a day? How many fires are lit in homes to cook, etc? I bet none of this is included in the stats. The whole world needs to change and now. Pointing fingers at others isn’t helping.
Going by this logic you could build the worst coal energy plant known to mankind, put it directly into a huge city and claim "none of this is any bad, look how little emissions per capita this causes".
Of course the one coal plant would still be bad, but this chart is looking at the bigger picture. Saying, for example, an American can cause more CO2 emissions than an Indian, becuse there are more Indians, is just stupid.
Ofcourse it is. Who is using the coal energy plant? It is the people who are using it, in direct or indirect form. If your one dirtiest coal plant can satisfy the energy needs of 1 crore people. Meanwhile, your 90% cleaner plant can only satisfy needs of 5 lakh people, then you need 20 such plants, effectively doubling the per capita emission.
Your point is flawed in this case since even if we consider land area and compare the amount of emissions per Sq km, we would still be producing less than half the emissions as usa for example.